I don't agree with absolutely everything Marnie says in her piece. But the stuff she says addresses pretty much all of my own concerns about this gathering and gatherings like it. And I agree with most of her opinions. In my own piece I tried to steer away from re-stating what she already said more eloquently.

For those of you who still can't access the SG SFW site, I'll re-post my piece here in a couple days.

153 comments:

Both articles bring to mind something I heard that was attributed to Bill Vaughn. "If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity."

I have a lot to say or think about in regards to "modern" Buddhism as expressed in the west. But then again I am a modern western buddhist who is white, middle class and a consumer of goods. What the hell do I know?

Sure they might have positioned themselves as elites, and they represent particular classes and all that.

The Way is still the Way. They can't change that. They can distort it, they can lie like a fundamentalist about it, but they can't change it.

Same with music. You worry that "Buddhism in America is going exactly the same direction as punk did when it became codified into a single prevailing fashion and sound." Is it market share you want? Is market share the driving force? 'Cause market share creates its own elites and privileged classes and marginalized classes.

The councils, as Uku so eloquently states are BS. The tchotchkes they sell at Tiantong-si in Zhejiang don't include Dogen, but they are cheap.

- I haven’t [that much] checked what this is all about, - but DG quotes, - @ 5:35 am, - as follows: - “If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity.”.

- I don’t know BV, but this quote isn’t a sign of wisdom.

- It is true of the nc who is interested in being a nc for the sake of being a nc, - sometimes.

- But categorization according to conformism or nonconformism, - according to being old fashioned or radical, - is quite often the sign of the unwise.

- “I have a lot to say or think about in regards to "modern" Buddhism as expressed in the west”. Many do.

"50 teachers under age 45 will join the council to consider together how the current teachers can best support and empower the next generations."

It would have made much more sense to make it 50 teachers under 50.. Esthetically, it makes more sense. Why did they pick age 45? There had to be a reason. If we can find out who proposed age 45, then we will know who the enemy is.. because, It's obvious why that particular number was chosen. It is as obvious as the nose on mysterion's face.

And who made the final cut? Who are these 230 teachers? I imagine there is a list of attendees published somewhere. Looking over their board of trustees, there doesn't appear to be a real, i.e. Zen Buddhist in the whole group. It might not be a Zen party. We all know they don't play well with others.

James Ford's mocking comments are revealing. It's a shame he feels the best way to respond to concerns about this event with sarcastic, belittling remarks, but then what can you expect from someone who can't make up his mind which religion to belong to.

You know, I think the organizers of this conference are actually running scared. They understand that their vision of Western Buddhism doesn't work anymore (and maybe never did). They see that there's something new going on, but they don't understand it.

The actual point of the conference is to try to figure out why "Boomeritis Buddhism" doesn't appeal to under-45s (which is why they have a separate track of under-45 teachers to explain it to them).

"Buddhism is a philosophy that doesn’t just question the prevailing view of the mainstream. It openly and often even aggressively questions itself."

Very nice! Although Buddha said don't just believe me or scirpture but question and test the Dharma for yourself, sometimes I get this sense in various Buddhist groups that it is wrong to question the teacher or the Buddhist teachings, and if you do, you may be burnt at the stake by other "followers".

That last part is an exaggeration, but nevertheless I sometimes feel pressure to keep my mouth shut if I have an opposing thought. And that is not healthy.

The idea is that a bunch of like-minded individuals will get together and more narrowly define the future of "Buddhism" in America.

Well, fuck them and the horse (donkey, colt, etc.) that they rode in on.

Buddhism is a religion/philosophy of one. Now one can explore, learn, surmise from experience and so forth just WHAT that religion/philosophy is because it is clear: "There is no higher authority than the ordinary monk."

And, as the ultimate exercise in individuality, Buddhism is loosely based upon certain precepts (e.g. presupposing - hypothetical) and practiced by modeled behavior.

For me, a major victory came when Hisako not only rejected the bacon strip for breakfast but had it removed from her plate before she could go on eating breakfast. Scorched animal flesh from one of our mammalian cousins does not a pleasant breakfast make.

Eggs? Yes, I still eat the unborn.

If YOU want to eat bacon with your eggs, it's not my business - as long as you are not sitting next to me. In that case, I may get up and move away from the smell of scorched flesh. But that's my move, not yours.

On most factory farms, animals are crowded into relatively small areas; their manure and urine are funneled into massive waste lagoons. These cesspools often break, leak or overflow, sending dangerous microbes, nitrate pollution and drug-resistant bacteria into water supplies.

That is the problem with being notorious, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Did you really want to get lumped in with that crowd anyways? Maybe the cash is better, we all need to survive, but what meaning can one find by selling out?

Guys like what's his face with the tortoise shell glasses and boyish insults are a dime a dozen. They are just kids trying to get attention by playing off your reputation. You have sort of played into their plan, sorry.

In non-renunciate Buddhism - Vajrayana - one purposely establishes a relationship with one's Lama, after fulling investigating the Lama, in which the Lama has authority over you.

Hello??!! Has anyone heard of Vajrayana?!

David Chapman (a very nice, and bright guy) sums things up very well on his website Approaching Aro:

"In Inner Tantra, particularly Dzogchen, the Lama teaches you how to live, in part by example. What matters is that you be inspired by the way the Lama lives, and that he or she is able to convey that to you. This “conveyance” is not primarily a matter of giving information or intellectual understanding; ways of living are not primarily conceptual. This mode requires a long-term, intimate relationship with the Lama as a unique individual. When I say “intimate” I do not mean that the Lama will take you to bed, any more than in Outer Tantra the Lama will cut open your chest. I mean that you and the Lama need to get to know each other well, and you must find it delightful to spend time together.

"Searching for a Lama for Inner Tantra is, therefore, like searching for a spouse, not a surgeon. Board certification is irrelevant. That would be like phoning someone you had never met and saying, “Hi! Do you have an ‘Adequate’ or better rating from the New Jersey Spousal Approval Authority? Yes? Good! I need to get married—can we arrange an appointment for sometime this month?” An authority can only say that someone is qualified to perform a generic technical task; an authority cannot say whether you and another person will be a good fit. Your friends might be able to introduce you to someone suitable, based on their knowledge of who you are; but ultimately only you can say whether another person is qualified to marry you.

"Aro teachers explain that apparent contradictions in Buddhism are always due to confusions about which yana a teaching belongs to. For instance, if you practice Outer Tantra, separating the sacred and the profane is critical, and you may be horrified by the Dzogchen doctrine that anything can be sacred or profane depending only on how you perceive it. There is no inherent purity or impurity, and no need for ritual cleanliness.Likewise, for Outer Tantra, the thought that someone might be practicing Vajrayana without a license is anathema. If a clever con man could get away with claiming to be a heart surgeon, collected huge fees, and cut hearts open without knowing what he was doing, it would be a catastrophe. Lots of patients would be taken in—how are they to know if someone is qualified?—and lots would die.This seems to be the basis for some nervousness, expressed on the web, about Aro and the Aro Lamas. “Has this been approved in writing by the Dala’i Lama?” they ask. “Is it really true that his Lamas gave Ngak’chang Rinpoche permission to teach?” “How can we be sure the Aro gTér wasn’t just made up? In what text was it prophesied by Padmasambhava?”From a Dzogchen perspective, some such questions are totally irrelevant, and the others are mostly beside the point—like a certificate from the Spousal Approval Authority. What matters is “am I inspired to practice by this Lama?” and “does the Lama give me radical, non-conceptual insights into existence that I could never get from a book?” and “do I find time with this Lama exquisitely enjoyable?""

Okay. There you go.

Read up on this stuff people. Don't shoot yourself in the spiritual foot. That would be stupid and painful.

Above quote from this page:http://approachingaro.org/lama-as-surgeon-lama-as-spouse

[...]Q does vajra command override all other considerations, such as bodhisattva vows?

Ngakma Shardröl: Well, yes it does. The idea in Vajrayana is that devotion to the Lama is the fulfilment of all the other vows because the Lama only lives to benefit beings and one could not ever do better than to carry out the Lama’s plans. That would be the best fulfilment of the bodhisattva vow as well. If one is still in the stage of thinking that one’s own interpretation of the vows is more valid than that of the Lama, this is not yet vajra relationship.

Q Why would it be useful to have a system that is so obviously open to abuse?

Ngakma Shardröl: It is a shocking demonstration of faith in the idea that beings actually exist who will not abuse others, no matter how much power they are given. Look at it this way: if you really believe in enlightenment, then it must be possible that such beings exist. We are putting our trust in that. This is useful because it is actually the only way that one can break out of the closed circle of one’s own filtered view, so maybe it is worth a bit of risk.

Q It is said that samaya should be viewed as a commitment but not an obligation. What is the distinction?

Ngakma Shardröl: ‘Obligation’ sounds like joylessly slogging along because you think you must, but you do not really want to. A commitment sounds like something you take on deliberately, because you choose to.

Q Is it the case that as long as one remains clear that samaya is something one has freely chosen, there is no difficulty with it?

Ngakma Shardröl: If one is lucky. But there may come a time when you find it challenging in spite of the fact that you chose it yourself. Like when some of your most cherished delusions, the ones you had no idea you had, or that you were sure were not delusions, are called into question…

Q The Aro Refuge text begins with the statement ‘The only external damtsig is kindness; the only internal damtsig is openness.’ How does this square with the detailed vows?

Ngakma Shardröl: The detailed vows are an elaboration of those two statements.

Q Is it, for example, a statement from an absolute point of view?Ngakma Shardröl: Yes.

Q If so, does it take priority over the detailed vows?

Ngakma Shardröl: No. Unless one could really depend on those two qualities without any need for further instruction. If not, the detailed vows are a support.

Q In particular—with regard, for example, to the Wal-Mart case—if kindness conflicted with vajra command, does kindness take precedence?

Ngakma Shardröl: No. If you prioritise your own concept of kindness, then you are not in vajra relationship. But even within vajra relationship it is acceptable to ask questions and to expect that the answers will be in conformity with the principles of dharma. This is a bit tricky because now it sounds as if I am saying that you get to judge whether or not what you are asked to do accords to the principles of dharma, which is not exactly what I mean. The thing is, there is no perfect solution to this problem except to be careful whom you choose as your vajra master. Within the practice of vajra relationship there is no room for doubting the vajra master. This may sound fascistic but if you retain your right to veto every suggestion, you cannot really engage in this practice. There must be enough trust to carry you through times when you cannot understand, and there must be enough actual experience of this person to make that trust an intelligent option.

"In non-renunciate Buddhism - Vajrayana - one purposely establishes a relationship with one's Lama, after fulling investigating the Lama, in which the Lama has authority over you."

Well, it's tricky, right?

You agree to give your Lama authority, so you are choosing.

Here. Ngak'chang Rinpoche talks about it in an interview:

"There is no sense of ‘vajra command’ in which totalitarian orders are given and followed in some inhuman subservient manner. That would be a complete distortion of the meaning of vajra commitment (and ‘vajra command’) in which kindness played no part."

And:

"Extreme examples of obedience are simply a way of discrediting vajra commitment through avoidance of real examples. Even if we take Milarépa as a real example, one has to remember that he was a murderer… Tibetan tales of vajra relationship often include ‘extraordinary behaviour’, but it is understood that disciples such as Milarépa could always have walked away from the tasks which Marpa had set him. He was not Marpa’s slave, simply the slave of his wish for liberation. Milarépa ran away a few times, but always came back because he wanted Marpa’s transmission so badly. He battled with himself in many ways before he finally received transmission, but it was always his choice. Milarépa is an extreme example. Marpa’s teacher Naropa is also an extreme example, but we need not concern ourselves with projecting ourselves into such situations. Marpa advised Milarépa that in the future disciples should not be tested in such extraordinary ways—that he was the last of the line to come in for such hardships.Vajra commitment nearly always reflects what is possible within a society. As far as we are personally concerned – those who request us to perform the rôle of vajra master need have no fear of unkindness, immorality, illegality, or unethical behaviour of any kind. The only thing we have to fear from any Lama is that our dualism will be destroyed. There is always (with us) the temptation to put caveats on vajra commitment in order to preserve the role of vajra master in the modern world. However, as a fundamental principle, we should say that ‘guarantee mentality’ is not a hopeful start to vajra relationship. If we begin by saying: I want to be in vajra commitment as long as I don’t have to give up new age crystals; as long as I don’t have to have my ideas challenged, then there is no way for us to approach the real heart of Tantra.That is the fundamental position, and it is actually worse than any cliff. Worse than Abraham slaughtering Isaac. Worse than anything. Allowing one’s rationale to be challenged: that is the whole terrible truth of vajra commitment. That is the very worst thing that can ever happen in terms of vajra commitment. There is only the terrible fact that one’s vision of reality may have to fall apart. There is only the dreadful knowledge that one’s justifications may be called into question. There is only the knowledge that one cannot hide. So, real examples of vajra command are far more likely to be instances of disciples being asked to question their perception, or to look at their behaviour in a different light, than instances of outlandishness. The vajra master simply needs to be able to point out that the disciple’s view of reality is askew. The vajra master needs to be able to point to instances of arrogance, anger, greed, dishonesty, and deliberate ignorance; and, to expect the disciple to take such observations to heart. The cliff edge, over which the disciple has to leap, is merely that of his or her own self-justifications. The cliff edge, over which the disciple has to leap, is merely letting go of claustrophobic infatuation with one’s own flatulent fantasies. The heart of justification has to be torn out. Ekajati, the protectress of the Dzogchen teachings, holds a ripped out human heart – in token of the fact that Dzogchen is impossible whilst self-justification survives."

While Buddhism has the power to change culture, America has the power to pervert Buddhism. Buddhism is the stronger of the two but American Buddhism might not be. If Wall Street sniffs out a dollar to be made in Buddhism they will surely get it. For Buddhism to survive in America it might have to become more dreary than it naturally is. No more high-profile coolio Buddhists!

Dear Mr. Warner,I am an event planner at the Garrison Institute and I want to let you know that we sent you an invitation Dec 11, 2010. I'm not sure what happened that you did not receive our invitation. And I regret this understanding. If you have any questions please email me at erin@garrisoninstitute.org.Thank you,Erin Koch

I'm trying to figure out who/what the Garrison Institute is. From my first (albeit superficial) look, it would appear to be a 'spiritual' TED simposium (technology/entertainment/design) kind of thing.

I would think you would have been on the original list of invitees and then someone would have raised a 'concern'In a way it would be like being cut from a big wedding guest list. Easier to deal with your feelings about it than to deal with all the other things which might have arisen."All the other things which might have arisen" is called prudence in one camp and fear in another. There may be a basis for it, or no basis for it.

It gives you a chance, Brad, to examine your own relationships with others.

There may come a time when people will invite you to everything even knowing you outright do not agree with thembecause your style and method of not agreeing will be something they can embrace and work with

Don't know if Genpo or Genpo transmitees were there, but that alone might be concern for causing needless discomfort/friction between attendees.

While I can see you were drawn to punk rock and drawn to zen buddhism as punker than punkzen buddhism has nothing to do with punk, punker or punkest.

I'm thinking its this 'punker than thou' coursing through you that causes the divide.Once it has run its course you'll not only be fine, you'll be hella unstoppable

you'll be speaking everywhere to everyone about anythingand not just to the itty bitty peanut gallery called Hardcore Zen Blog!

"Did you really want to get lumped in with that crowd anyways? Maybe the cash is better, we all need to survive, but what meaning can one find by selling out?"-Anonymous at 4:13 PM

Are you KIDDING ME? Brad would sell out in a millisecond if anyone was buying his brand for big bucks. Thats what this blog is all about, shameless self-promotion. He failed as a rock star so now he's selling Buddha, and failing as well. No invitation? Because he's not taken seriously and will never be. As he said, he'd have gone to the damn thing if they'd only throw him a bone.

Brad,By not inviting you the grand poobah and buddhist council knew that you would kick and scream. That's what brad warner does best. Now, the grand poobah explains if we invite him he will kick and scream and decline to come being that he is a poor monk traveling with a bowl and that brad will claim to absolutely have no part of it. The grand poobah explained it will be wiser to not invite him and thus the grander grandstand.

So brad you either got played hard or the dharma works in mysterious ways. You choose

Very interesting that the Garrison Institute event planner leaves a message in the comments here and on Suicide Girls rather than actually contacting Brad by email. Clearly doesn't know much about the Internet to put an email address in any comments forum!

WTF is up with that aside from a snarky move designed to provoke a sense of embarrassment? That's one way to get people to shut up and stop criticizing. One of the oldest socially coercive tactics around. The institutional representative (backed by the weight of that position) seeks to defer any criticism by pointing out something like this. Had the thing not been so secretive in the first place perhaps Brad and others could have queried their status vis-a-vis invitations.

And I think they meant misunderstanding rather than understanding.

Did this event planner also send the invitation via comments?

Not such great event planning when one doesn't follow up on a non-response? Or wasn't an RSVP expected?

Very odd indeed. Ms. Koch must feel the omission to invite Brad has become an embarrassment to the grand Maha Poobah. Why else put an explanation out on two public forums. It looks like damage control rather than a real explanation. And putting her email addy on Brad's blog? Holy shit!

Are you KIDDING ME? Brad would sell out in a millisecond if anyone was buying his brand for big bucks. Thats what this blog is all about, shameless self-promotion. He failed as a rock star so now he's selling Buddha, and failing as well. No invitation? Because he's not taken seriously and will never be. As he said, he'd have gone to the damn thing if they'd only throw him a bone.

WTF is up with that aside from a snarky move designed to provoke a sense of embarrassment? That's one way to get people to shut up and stop criticizing. One of the oldest socially coercive tactics around. The institutional representative (backed by the weight of that position) seeks to defer any criticism by pointing out something like this.

just because its old doesnt mean its not something that these people would do as an unconscious habit because their entire life is a facade and the only thing buddhist about them is a thick coat of rotten veneer barely covering the cracks in their cast iron masks

Very odd indeed. Ms. Koch must feel the omission to invite Brad has become an embarrassment to the grand Maha Poobah. Why else put an explanation out on two public forums. It looks like damage control rather than a real explanation.

it looks like she should have also added some check boxes for "yes" and "no" and also asked him if he liked her back

and then maybe she should also write that same letter, every day, for the rest of her life ... and never realize it

"You must persist in the effort to always incarnate the virtues of non-reactivity, equanimity, unshakeable gravitas, constant sympathetic and selfless regard of all others, indifference toward the owning and controlling of others and events, and unwavering committment to the Realization of Perfect Knowledge (or the State of Truth-Only), such that all your clinging is to these virtues alone, as if they were a kind of ambrosial nectar."

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." -- Butch Hancock

Anon 12:16 said:You market yourself as an outsider, and now you're upset because you weren't invited to a mainstream convention? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

I guess I failed to state my case clearly. It's not that I'm upset at not being invited. I'm not too fussed about that. It's that I feel that the institute's failure to invite me says something relevant about the gathering.

By the way, I'm going to be checking on whether the post from Erin Koch is authentic or not as soon as my email is working properly again.

Someone who didn't want us to know his/her name said:Are you KIDDING ME? Brad would sell out in a millisecond if anyone was buying his brand for big bucks. Thats what this blog is all about, shameless self-promotion. He failed as a rock star so now he's selling Buddha, and failing as well. No invitation? Because he's not taken seriously and will never be. As he said, he'd have gone to the damn thing if they'd only throw him a bone.

He's a hypocrite, pure and simple.

An interesting set of presumptions.

I have never hidden the fact that I write to make a living. In this job, one must promote oneself. It's not like other jobs where someone else promotes the widgets or whatever it is you make for the company you work for. Being a writer is an all-in-one deal.

That being said, I am always trying to sell as many books as I can. At the level where I operate it takes vigorous promotion just to stay alive at subsistence level.

"Selling out" is an interesting concept. People throw it around as if it's something easily available. But back in my poor musician days I tried very hard to sell out. Nobody was buying! (as you said)

As to whether I am "selling Buddha and failing"... I'm not even sure I understand what this means. I'm not "selling Buddha" at all, as far as I can see. I'm selling books that are about my relationship to what Buddha taught. And I am succeeding in that. Perhaps not at the level my landlord would like. But then again, Red Pine is on government assistance, so I'm in good company.

I don't know if I'm taken seriously or not. What does that mean? I know that there are people who take me a bit too seriously. They send me emails. I know there are people who think I'm a joke. They write anonymous postings on my blog. I take the people who send me emails more seriously.

I posted that I sent an invitation to Brad publically because it is clear he did not receive my email invitation. One intern and myself were responsible for sending over 400 invitations to teachers whose names were given to us by the steering committee and teachers already invited. We made several attempts at following up but obviously, for reasons unknown, we didn't get through to brad. Maybe we had a wrong email or maybe the invite went to his junk mail. I can let brad know the email we have if he wants. Clearly, i did not go to great lengths to find Brad. I regret this, but we did not have the resources. And at the time i assumed all non- responses were not interested. Also, i know the steering committee did its best to follow up with teachers. We discused this numerous times. I have no knowledge of Brad's work, so there was no political agenda involved. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the invitation process because the process was transparent. Feel free to email me if you have questions about the buddhist teacher council. Erin@garrisoninstitute.orgErin KochEvent planner, gi

"The wise become Confucian in good times, Buddhist in bad times and Daoist in old age." -RAW

Whoever linked us to SnagFilms a few blogs back with the Bernie Glassman doc Instructions to the Cook I want to thank...although since then I have spent an inordinate amount of time perusing the site and watching films.

So far I can recommend the Glassman one, and especially On The Mesa -Off The Grid about vets and other off-the-road warriors living outside society.

A real jewel is one I caught last night on Robert Anton Wilson, author-shaman or-something (maybe) of Cosmic Trigger fame:

"The being of two people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal. This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they definitely do not wish to understand it"

"So strong is the belief in life, in what is most fragile in life – real life, I mean – that in the end this belief is lost. Man, that inveterate dreamer, daily more discontent with his destiny, has trouble assessing the objects he has been led to use, objects that his nonchalance has brought his way, or that he has earned through his own efforts, almost always through his own efforts, for he has agreed to work, at least he has not refused to try his luck (or what he calls his luck!). At this point he feels extremely modest: he knows what women he has had, what silly affairs he has been involved in; he is unimpressed by his wealth or his poverty, in this respect he is still a newborn babe and, as for the approval of his conscience, I confess that he does very nicely without it. If he still retains a certain lucidity, all he can do is turn back toward his childhood which, however his guides and mentors may have botched it, still strikes him as somehow charming. There, the absence of any known restrictions allows him the perspective of several lives lived at once; this illusion becomes firmly rooted within him; now he is only interested in the fleeting, the extreme facility of everything. Children set off each day without a worry in the world. Everything is near at hand, the worst material conditions are fine. The woods are white or black, one will never sleep." -A.B. (1924)

Bastardo said:"Gee, it's kind of embarrassing to have had all this hullaballoo if Brad was in fact invited, isn't it?"

I don't think Brad is embarrassed.. Are you embarrassed?

Embarrassed isn't the word I'd use. It does seem as if the post from Ms Koch is authentic.

Whether I was invited or not, I still feel the same about these kinds of gatherings. I used my not having been invited as an angle from which I could comment upon the many other problems I have with these types of events, and with the direction Buddhism is headed.

So I will be apologizing to the Garrison Institute for misrepresenting them in so far as my invitation is concerned. I'll do that once my computer is repaired and I no longer have to use one at the local Apple Store as I am doing now.

But my feelings towards such events haven't changed. Nor have my feelings about the matter of a self-appointed elite within Buddhism who wish to set the agenda for the rest of us.

the direction of which Bradness speks, IMO, is the institutionalization and narrowing of a rather panoramic philosophy.

There are enough FUNDIS Buddhist Cults kicking around without creating yet another one. The definition, scope, and requirements of Soto Zen should remain in Japan - where tradition has it now. To do so, however, would utterly invalidate the dharma transmission of the self-identifies nisei Masters.

Anubis is not the "soul eater", he is the guide for a person's journey through the land of the dead, and he is the one who weighs the heart against the feather of Maat. As a Neter he represents the function of digestion, and also presides over the mummification process.

The "eater of hearts" is Ammut. The giver of the "second death".

If you are really interested in properly critiquing the judeo-christian tradition, as you are so seemingly wont to do - I would advise a much more thorough understanding of egyptian mythology.

Hey Malcolm, RU referring to the link from Gday Mate, or the one I put up there above on the Robert Anton Wilson documentary, which I don't mind plugging again, it is well worth a look if you haven't. You, too, Charles, (and everybody)think you'll dig it:

I was reviewing Gday Mate's HHDL link, john; thanking him and concurring with you. I'd put yours on the back-burner and forgotten about it...thanks for the reminder. I'll check out RAW later this eve, after pop group practice :)

When you do watch the RAW doc Maybe Logic, hang with it, the editing is odd in spots (luckily RAW was aware that some of his concepts sometimes require repetition) IMO, but the effect of the whole film is well worth it.

And yeah, who knew HH the DL had not heard of a "pizza shop". with his schedule, you'd think he'd grabbed a slice now and then...

I miss the band thing, but have been painting alot and loving it, so, will get back to the music soon enough, have fun!

No one mentioned Ms. Koch or even knew of her existence until she decided to put herself out there. If she were only representing herself and her personal situation I would agree with you. However she is representing that Institute. It's bad public relations while one is in a role representing something in a professional capacity, to show up in a rowdy place such as this for any reason.

Why do you think most organizations have PR departments or communications directors? Do you ever see any professional organization going out to answer comments on random blogs? They don't even answer comments on their own blogs and have specific policies about those comments. They issue news releases or clarifications on their own websites or they handle complaints privately. By whose authority does she make these comments? Is she authorized to speak on behalf of the Institute? Is it their policy to troll blogs of people they maybe have invited (or not) to their events? And she is trolling in an oh so nice passive-aggressive way.

Marnie, I'm a fan but you can be a little hard on people sometimes. Attacking Ms Koch for being ignorant enough to state her case in this snake pit is a good example. She probably had no idea what a rude group she was addressing here. At best she was only trying to be kind, and there's no good reason for you not the think the best of her.

Isn't there something deeply ironic about the badass punk poster boy for nonconformity in Buddhism becoming upset because he wasn't invited to a conference where the Buddhist Vatican promulgates official Buddhist dogma.

In your blog post relating to Osama Bin Laden's death you made the following statement:

"Whatever viewpoints/emotions you have are just your viewpoints and emotions. It's not as if the Zen Committee is out there somewhere deciding which viewpoints are acceptable and which are not."

Brad, why the fuck are you upset about not being invited to a meeting of the Zen Committee?

If I may.. It could be that Brad, like the rest of us, does not know what he wants from moment to moment. He simultaneously wants to attend such an affair and ridicule it also.

Here's some advice: Don't admire him too much for his books. While they are an accomplishment, Brad was just the messenger of the ideas put forth in his books. The ideas were passed on to him from an chain of teachers going back to the big guy. By his own admission, Brad is a rather shallow person with some decent writing skills. Basically a good guy, hang around long enough and you will see he can be a real asshole too.

What I don't get, (or particularly give a rat's ass about, just my 2 cents:) is why this Ms. Koch found it prudent to track Brad down after the fact and post a comment/apology on this blog. She didn't explain that at all. Nor did she attempt to re-invite him, which could conceivably have been done...I'm sure they have enough veggie loaf and fishes to go around (presuming they remembered to invite Him).

Or did I miss something? Possibly waves of Brad's ire were registered in The (Zen Committee)Force's sphincter-scale or whatever prompting research into the blogosphere.

@ John E. Mumbles - it's not a matter of her being "prudent." In all likelihood it plays out like this...

They put out a few hundred invitations.

Some people respond, some don't. Garrison doesn't have the resources to track down the people who didn't. So they go with the people who accepted the invite, and that's the group.

Much later, Brad writes his post. Erin or somebody else at Garrison notices it. They check their records. They find they invited him and didn't hear back.

She posts here for two reasons. One is to correct the record. He accused them of overlooking them. They say that wasn't the case. Judging by his later comment, he seems to agree.

The second reason is to open a channel. The most direct way to do that is to provide her e-mail address. It's fairly brave of her to do that, considering that in addition to Brad, she's likely to hear from a lot of Raging Buddhists(tm). But them's the breaks. She could e-mail him directly, true. But the earlier e-mail went astray, so maybe she has the wrong address. She knows he'll read the comments here and at SG. And she gets to go on the record (see option 1, above).

If Brad decides to get in touch with her, a dialogue can develop. Maybe Garrison extends him a new invitation. Maybe they don't. If not, there could be many reasons (rooms are booked, catering is set up, somebody's pissed off, who knows?) But maybe they think it'd be worth developing a relationship with him - they could invite him to a future event or some other kind of program.

All of this is in the normal course of managing a big event.

If you told Charlotte Joko Beck you were angry about it, she'd talk to you about the empty rowboat.

To all the Raging Buddhists(tm) (and to paraphrase Lord Olivier) - why don't you try Zen? It's so much easier!

Oh, and just to clarify - the rest of the conversation between Brad and Ms. Koch, if there is one, can play out in e-mail. There's no need for the rest of us to read all of it. Just because the dialogue started in public doesn't mean it has to stay in public. Therefore, no new invitation. There might be one, there might not, but Raging Buddhists(tm) don't necessarily get to watch.

Whoops... second comment posted first, first one vanished. So let's try again. Like I was sayin'...

@John E. Mumbles - it's not a matter of being "prudent." It's simple diplomacy. It plays out like this...

-- A while ago, Garrison sends out hundreds of invites. Some people respond, some don't.

-- Garrison doesn't have the resources to track down all the people who didn't respond. They have a bunch of people who accepted, and that's the group. If people refused, they refused. If they didn't respond, well, maybe they had other things going on, or just didn't get around to it, or what have you.

-- Months later, Brad writes here and at SG that he wasn't invited.

-- Garrison checks its records and finds out that in fact he was.

-- Ms. Koch posts here and at SG, for two reasons...

-- Reason 1 is, she gets to set the record straight. There was, she claims, an invitation. Brad's later comment seems to acknowledge this.

-- Reason 2 is, she gets to open a dialogue with Brad that might at some future point lead to an improved relationship. Why not by e-mail? Well, she didn't hear back from Brad the first time, and the e-mail she sent him seems to have gone astray, so maybe she's got a bad address in her list. But she knows Brad reads the comments here and at SG. So she's more confident she can reach him. She also gets to correct the record (see Reason 1).

It's actually pretty brave of her to post her e-mail, considering that whether or not she hears from Brad, she's likely to hear from a lot of Raging Buddhists(tm). But by posting her e-mail (which can be verified), she shows that she is in fact who she claims to be.

Why doesn't she issue a new invitation in public? Here again there could be many reasons. Maybe all the space is booked - it's too late for this meeting. But Garrison would like to include Brad in future meetings. Or maybe she thinks it would be useful in principle for Garrison to be in touch with Brad. Or maybe there is in fact room for him, and she hopes he'll get back to her and accept. But there's no reason to have that whole conversation in the comment thread. The conversation, if there is one, can play out in e-mail. Now that the record is corrected, it isn't really necessary for the Raging Buddhists(tm) to see everything.

And that's it. All in the normal course of arranging a big event. Happens all the time.

If you talked to Charlotte Joko Beck about it, she'd tell you about the empty rowboat.

There. Now you can go back and read my other comment, just above this one, and it'll make more sense. Though now it's sort of redundant, since I wrote this version better than the first one.

Anonymous up there thanks for all the great late Alex Chilton memories, plus the Cramps tune. I caught The Cramps shortly after Alex produced Songs The Lord Taught Us. Simply Amazing. R.I.P. Alex, Lux...

Michele Bachmann’s interview with the Wall Street Journal is a precision-guided missile aimed at the heart of the Palin semi-campaign. Whatever you like about Palin, Bachmann will go double-or-nothing with you. Want family values? “She’s a mother of five, and she and her husband helped raise 23 teenage foster children in their home, as many as four at a time. They succeeded in getting all 23 through high school and later founded a charter school.” Want a Mama Grizzly rather than a career politician? “The kids were coloring posters in 11th grade algebra class. I decided to do my duty, go to the Republican convention. I had on jeans, a sweatshirt with a hole in it, white moccasins, and I showed up in this auditorium and everyone said, ‘Why are we nominating this guy [Gary] Laidig every four years?’” Want proof that a conservatism so raw you could use it to strip wood can win? “She ran for Congress in 2006, the worst year for Republicans in two decades. ... She won 50% to 42%.” Want someone who drives liberals crazy? “Nancy Pelosi and all her horses spent $9.6 million to defeat me in that race’ ... In 2010, the Democrats and their union allies raised more than $10 million to try to defeat her. ‘My adversaries have certainly been highly motivated,’ she says.”

You see, the truth is NOT a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many Muslims, Christians, or Jews there are on Earth. The Abrahamic religions spawn suffering because they are the handiwork of Mara...

Looking for the tabernacle [body] maker,through the many cycles of birth.And in not finding him,painful are the cycles of birth.

No more, maker of tabernacles [embodiments],for you [Mara] have been seen.You shall make my tabernacle [body] no more.

Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. The light shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle shall be put out with him. (Job 18:5-6)

Nowhere is it more obvious that Paul is quoting the Buddha than in 2 Corinthians 5:1.

1. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a... house not made with hands, eternal in (nirbana) the heavens.4. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan (suffer), being burdened (with suffering).

(The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians - e.g. the church at Corinth)

Nella Lou said...Brad I don't think you need to go to far with that apology thing. They didn't bother with any follow up then again put comments here..to what end? To make you apologize and humble yourself.

It's bullshit. They should apologize for their lack of professionalism.

You're right. They could've properly invited Brad by placing a full page ad on the New York Times, or simultaneously booking an hour of prime time on ABC, NBC and CBS with a plea that Brad come, or personally sending a delegation headed by the Dalai Lama to find Brad, wherever he may be, and personally hand over the invitation. They didn't bother to do any of that. How unprofessional!

There is no materialist b-dhism. The hipsters--like Mysti-- who think they can do materialist "Zen-counseling" simply miss the entire point of the ..dharma . Mediate away with yr Freud-burger but thats not what's its about. Even Guru Deeprok gets that one.

1. "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a... house not made with hands, eternal in (nirbana) the heavens."

What i don't get is Gotama made a point of distinguishing between heaven realms and nibana. " neither gods nor man know where the enlightened go after death" Gotama did say heaven realms exist but supposed gods there where still bound by karma and will be reborn. So was Paul twisting the truth to fit his agenda?